On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s a lie.......

>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>
>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.

>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>> the only force necessary.
>
> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.

But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.

> To qualify as a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.

No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
A theory must be able to make predictions with a lot of supporting
evidence for those predictions.
Quit making up your own definitions for words and phrases you don't
understand.

> DTG is qualified as a complete theory of gravity. Why? It gives a new equation of gravity that give better fit to observations.

Stupid Ken, you don't even HAVE any equations in your Muddle Mechanics.
Except for one or two swiped directly from other theories. You can't
even do enough math to come up with a new equation.
In addition, you can't even make any predictions from your Muddle Mechanics.

> It includes the cause of gravity.

You mean, of course, it includes an unsupported assertion of the cause
of gravity.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 11:10:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moron, your SR cult claims that owls in the opposite directions is
>>>>>>> isotropic on earth and I don’t belief it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why should that matter to anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> It matters because I have a better theory of everything.and current
>>>>> physics failed to achieve that after 110 years of trying.
>>>> You mean that you have an unsupported assertion where you claim to have
>>>> a better hypothesis (not a theory). Not even hypothesis, an actual
>>>> better word is conjecture. No, even that word is too positive.
>>>
>>> Model Mechanics is a valid TOE. Live with it.
>> That is a worthless, unsupported assertion. Live with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s a lie.......
>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>
>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>> the only force necessary.
>
> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory. To qualify as
> a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.

Who says? You?
Think scientists care what you think must be included to count as a theory?

> DTG is qualified as a complete theory of gravity. Why? It gives a new
> equation of gravity that give better fit to observations. It includes the cause of gravity.
>
>>> Model Mechanics provide the cause of gravity.
>> Nobody cares about your unsupported assertions. Live with it.
>>>> I don’t belief in abstract math based on none exisiting mathematical objects.
>>>> The word is "believe".
>>>>> .I don’t belief that the speed of light is observer independent.
>>>> Your uneducated belief is irrelevant. Remember the constant speed of
>>>> light came from observations.
>>>
>>> It is not irrelevant....the speed of anything (including light) is observer
>>> dependent.L=ive with it.
>> Except observers noted and agreed that it is observer independent. Live
>> with it. Do you believe actual observations are false? Do you understand
>> the meaning of "delusional thinking"?
>>>>> I belief in most basic physics especially high school physics.
>>
>>>> Yet you explicitly disbelieve in Newton's orbital motion laws, taught in
>>>> every high school physics class. Make up your mind, do you believe in
>>>> high school physics or don’t you?
>>>
>>> Newton didn’t give the cause of gravity.
>> That wasn't his goal. He described how gravity, whatever its cause,
>> behaves to make apples fall and planets orbit. And nobody cares about
>> your worthless assertions anyway.
>>
>> Do you believe in high school physics including the part which teaches
>> Newton's proof that a single gravitational force causes orbital motion,
>> or don't you?
>>
>> And how can you even claim you believe in basic physics if you refuse to
>> even read about basic physics?
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:11 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I belief in most basic physics especially high school physics.
>>>>>> But you don’t believe the high school physics that says a single unbalanced
>>>>>> force can produce a stable orbit.
>>>>>
>>>>> But gravity is not a single attractive force.
>>>> Not according to high school physics. You said you believe high school
>>>> physics.
>>>
>>> That’s because physicists forced the cult belief of SR unto the students.
>> Ok then your statement that you “belief in most basic physics especially
>> high school physics” was a lie.
>
> No, I didn’t say all of high school physics are invalid. I said most of
> high school physics are invalid.

Ah ok, so you don’t believe in MOST of basic high school physics,
especially high school physics.

And you think most of basic physics is dead wrong.

>>
>> You don’t believe basic high school physics.
>>> If gravity is a single attractive force the moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
> >>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s a lie.......
>
> >>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
> >>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
> >>>
> >>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>
> >> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
> >> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
> >> the only force necessary.
> >
> > Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.

No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
observed curve is a theory.
That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve effect of gravity.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.

> > To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.

That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity......instead they
just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.

> A theory must be able to make predictions with a lot of supporting
> evidence for those predictions.
> Quit making up your own definitions for words and phrases you don't
> understand.
> > DTG is qualified as a complete theory of gravity. Why? It gives a new equation of gravity that give better fit to observations.
> Stupid Ken, you don't even HAVE any equations in your Muddle Mechanics.
> Except for one or two swiped directly from other theories. You can't
> even do enough math to come up with a new equation.
> In addition, you can't even make any predictions from your Muddle Mechanics.
> > It includes the cause of gravity.
> You mean, of course, it includes an unsupported assertion of the cause
> of gravity.

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:44:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:11 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> I belief in most basic physics especially high school physics.
> >>>>>> But you don’t believe the high school physics that says a single unbalanced
> >>>>>> force can produce a stable orbit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But gravity is not a single attractive force.
> >>>> Not according to high school physics. You said you believe high school
> >>>> physics.
> >>>
> >>> That’s because physicists forced the cult belief of SR unto the students.
> >> Ok then your statement that you “belief in most basic physics especially
> >> high school physics” was a lie.
> >
> > No, I didn’t say all of high school physics are invalid. I said most of
> > high school physics are invalid.
> Ah ok, so you don’t believe in MOST of basic high school physics,
> especially high school physics.

Most high school math is ok. But it failed to include the correct physical cause of the math
lead to a wrong direction that includes the current complicated scheme of fields and force messengers.
> ink that. I think
> And you think most of basic physics is dead wrong.

No, I don’t that. I think basics physics is incomplete because it lack the fundamental physical
causes of all the processes of nature.
> >>

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
>>
>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>>
>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>>>> the only force necessary.
>>>
>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
>
> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> observed curve is a theory.

That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
physicists call a physical theory.

Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of gravity. It has no cause. Nobody
cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.

Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.

There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.

> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
> Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve effect of gravity.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
>
>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
>
> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
>
>> A theory must be able to make predictions with a lot of supporting
>> evidence for those predictions.
>> Quit making up your own definitions for words and phrases you don't
>> understand.
>>> DTG is qualified as a complete theory of gravity. Why? It gives a new
>>> equation of gravity that give better fit to observations.
>> Stupid Ken, you don't even HAVE any equations in your Muddle Mechanics.
>> Except for one or two swiped directly from other theories. You can't
>> even do enough math to come up with a new equation.
>> In addition, you can't even make any predictions from your Muddle Mechanics.
>>> It includes the cause of gravity.
>> You mean, of course, it includes an unsupported assertion of the cause
>> of gravity.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:44:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:11 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I belief in most basic physics especially high school physics.
>>>>>>>> But you don’t believe the high school physics that says a single unbalanced
>>>>>>>> force can produce a stable orbit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But gravity is not a single attractive force.
>>>>>> Not according to high school physics. You said you believe high school
>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s because physicists forced the cult belief of SR unto the students.
>>>> Ok then your statement that you “belief in most basic physics especially
>>>> high school physics” was a lie.
>>>
>>> No, I didn’t say all of high school physics are invalid. I said most of
>>> high school physics are invalid.
>> Ah ok, so you don’t believe in MOST of basic high school physics,
>> especially high school physics.
>
> Most high school math is ok.

High school PHYSICS. High school PHYSICS shows how a single unbalanced
force can produce a stable orbit. You don’t understand high school physics.
Then you deny everything you don’t understand. Nobody cares what you deny.

> But it failed to include the correct physical cause of the math
> lead to a wrong direction that includes the current complicated scheme of
> fields and force messengers.
>> ink that. I think
>> And you think most of basic physics is dead wrong.
>
> No, I don’t that.

You JUST SAID yesterday that most high school physics is wrong.

You are senile. You do not remember saying things you said hours ago.

> I think basics physics is incomplete because it lack the fundamental physical
> causes of all the processes of nature.
>>>>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 5/4/2021 9:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
>>
>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>>
>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>>>> the only force necessary.
>>>
>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
>
> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> observed curve is a theory.

Wrong, Stupid Ken. Modelling the observed behavior correctly is what
makes a physics theory. Finding a physical cause is not what makes a
theory. That is your own definition, not that of scientists.

> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity.

No, Stupid Ken. A pack of unsupported assertions doesn't make a theory.

> It has the corrected modified
> Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve effect of gravity.

Again, wrong, Stupid Ken. A pack of worthless assertions cannot correct
anything. Science requires evidence, assertions are not evidence.

> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.

No, Stupid Ken. In 110 years science has gone from knowing only about
gravity and electromagnetism to discovering the strong and weak forces
and uniting them with electromagnetism. Your Muddle Mechanics can only
come up with assertions.

>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
>
> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations.

Again wrong. You don't get to redefine "theory". A successful model is
what a theory does. NASA has sent space probes which do a flyby of
Jupiter, then Saturn, then Uranus and Neptune while getting great
science from them shows how well the theory of gravity works, with
SIMPLE math and just one force.

> It urns out that math
> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.

Again, Newton PROVED that wrong hundreds of years ago. Newton PROVED
only one force was necessary. If you knew high school physics, you'd
know that.

On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 16:03:38 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/4/2021 9:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
> >>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
> >>
> >>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
> >>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
> >>
> >>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
> >>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
> >>>> the only force necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
> >> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
> >> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
> >> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
> >> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
> >
> > No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> > observed curve is a theory.
> Wrong, Stupid Ken. Modelling the observed behavior correctly is what
> makes a physics theory.

Wrong, stupid Mike, it's quite the opposite. In science
you're to observe and measure what gurus said you will.
And, as anyone can check at GPS - your Shit hasn't achieved
this goal.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
> >>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
> >>
> >>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
> >>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
> >>
> >>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
> >>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
> >>>> the only force necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
> >> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
> >> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
> >> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
> >> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
> >
> > No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> > observed curve is a theory.
> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
> physicists call a physical theory.

An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
>
> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of gravity.no cause. Nobody
> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.

No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.
> nteracti
> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.

There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
>
> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.

> > That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
> > Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve effect of gravity.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
> > a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
> >
> >>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
> >> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
> >
> > That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
> > just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
> > alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
> > single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
> >

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:30 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:44:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:11 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I belief in most basic physics especially high school physics.
> >>>>>>>> But you don’t believe the high school physics that says a single unbalanced
> >>>>>>>> force can produce a stable orbit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But gravity is not a single attractive force.
> >>>>>> Not according to high school physics. You said you believe high school
> >>>>>> physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s because physicists forced the cult belief of SR unto the students.
> >>>> Ok then your statement that you “belief in most basic physics especially
> >>>> high school physics” was a lie.
> >>>
> >>> No, I didn’t say all of high school physics are invalid. I said most of
> >>> high school physics are invalid.
> >> Ah ok, so you don’t believe in MOST of basic high school physics,
> >> especially high school physics.
> >
> > Most high school math is ok.
> High school PHYSICS. High school PHYSICS shows how a single unbalanced
> force can produce a stable orbit.
You don’t even understand that whirling a ball on a string requires a combination of two forces. <Sad>
>
>You don’t understand high school physics.
ROTFLOL....Pot kettle black.
>
> Then you deny everything you don’t understand. Nobody cares what you deny.
> > But it failed to include the correct physical cause of the math
> > lead to a wrong direction that includes the current complicated scheme of
> > fields and force messengers.
> >> ink that. I think
> >> And you think most of basic physics is dead wrong.
> >
> > No, I don’t that.
> You JUST SAID yesterday that most high school physics is wrong.
>
> You are senile. You do not remember saying things you said hours ago.
> > I think basics physics is incomplete because it lack the fundamental physical
> > causes of all the processes of nature.
> >>>>
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>>>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>>>>>> the only force necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
>>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
>>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
>>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
>>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
>>>
>>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
>>> observed curve is a theory.
>> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
>> physicists call a physical theory.
>
> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.

LOL.

So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
physics theory is.

Got it.

Any other megalomaniacal delusions for the day?

>>
>> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of
>> gravity.no cause. Nobody
>> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
>
> No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.

According to YOU. Not according to physicists. You have very strange ideas.

>> nteracti
>> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
>> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
>
> There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is
> the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
>>
>> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
>> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
>> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
> ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.

More megalomania?

>
>>> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
>>> Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve
>>> effect of gravity.
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
>>> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
>>>
>>>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
>>>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
>>>
>>> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
>>> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
>>> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
>>> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
>>>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:30 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:44:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 3:05:11 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I belief in most basic physics especially high school physics.
>>>>>>>>>> But you don’t believe the high school physics that says a single unbalanced
>>>>>>>>>> force can produce a stable orbit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But gravity is not a single attractive force.
>>>>>>>> Not according to high school physics. You said you believe high school
>>>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s because physicists forced the cult belief of SR unto the students.
>>>>>> Ok then your statement that you “belief in most basic physics especially
>>>>>> high school physics” was a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I didn’t say all of high school physics are invalid. I said most of
>>>>> high school physics are invalid.
>>>> Ah ok, so you don’t believe in MOST of basic high school physics,
>>>> especially high school physics.
>>>
>>> Most high school math is ok.
>> High school PHYSICS. High school PHYSICS shows how a single unbalanced
>> force can produce a stable orbit.
> You don’t even understand that whirling a ball on a string requires a
> combination of two forces. <Sad>

Not according to high school physics.

You think high school physics is mostly wrong.

>>
>> You don’t understand high school physics.
> ROTFLOL....Pot kettle black.
>>
>> Then you deny everything you don’t understand. Nobody cares what you deny.
>>> But it failed to include the correct physical cause of the math
>>> lead to a wrong direction that includes the current complicated scheme of
>>> fields and force messengers.
>>>> ink that. I think
>>>> And you think most of basic physics is dead wrong.
>>>
>>> No, I don’t that.
>> You JUST SAID yesterday that most high school physics is wrong.
>>
>> You are senile. You do not remember saying things you said hours ago.
>>> I think basics physics is incomplete because it lack the fundamental physical
>>> causes of all the processes of nature.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 16:26:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You think high school physics is mostly wrong.

It can't be, of course; not all like Euclidean prejudices.

On 5/5/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.

>>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
>>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
>>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
>>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
>>>
>>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
>>> observed curve is a theory.

>> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
>> physicists call a physical theory.
>
> An equation alone is not a theory.

It is not an equation alone, Stupid Ken. It is a relationship which
describes relationships between several things or events. The equation
describes the relationship mathematically.

> It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.

Say what? Physics theories are created and used by physicists all the
time! Part of the definition of physics are the definitions of theories,
hypotheses, the scientific method and so forth.

It is what YOU call a theory which is irrelevant. Nobody in science
cares what some senile babbler in some old folks calls a theory. They
care what scientists defined long ago as a part of a definition of
science itself.
>>
>> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of gravity.no cause. Nobody
>> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
>
> No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.

Sorry, Stupid Ken. Newton's theory is a theory on how gravity acts and
behaves, not its cause. A certain theory of optics describes how white
light refracts in a glass prism. It doesn't care what the source of the
light is.

>> nteracti
>> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
>> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
>
> There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.

That is an assertion of no value. It is not science. For it to be
science you'd need to provide clear and convincing evidence for the
existence of the Ematrix, the particles and "absolute motion" as well as
how they relate to produce anything described by the equation.
>>
>> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
>> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
>> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.

> ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.

Stupid Ken, only gravity needs to be added. And it is not a failure for
anything to take 110 years. Nobody set a timer.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
> >>>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
> >>>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
> >>>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
> >>>>>> the only force necessary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
> >>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
> >>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
> >>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
> >>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
> >>>
> >>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> >>> observed curve is a theory.
> >> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
> >> physicists call a physical theory.
> >
> > An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
> LOL.
>
> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
> physics theory is.

Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.
That’s an improvement of the current theory. It turns out that the cause of the interaction
is the most important, it leads to a valid theory of everything. Live with it.
>
> Got it.
No you did’t get it.

>er megalomaniacal delusions for the day?
> >>
> >> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of
> >> gravity.no cause. Nobody
> >> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
> >
> > No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.
> According to YOU. Not according to physicists. You have very strange ideas.
> >> nteracti
> >> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
> >> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
> >
> > There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is
> > the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
> >>
> >> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
> >> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
> >> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
> > ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.
> More megalomania?
> >
> >>> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
> >>> Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve
> >>> effect of gravity.
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> >>> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
> >>> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
> >>>
> >>>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
> >>>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
> >>>
> >>> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
> >>> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
> >>> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
> >>> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
> >>>
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/5/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
>
> >>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
> >>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
> >>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
> >>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
> >>>
> >>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> >>> observed curve is a theory.
>
> >> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
> >> physicists call a physical theory.
> >
> > An equation alone is not a theory.
> It is not an equation alone, Stupid Ken. It is a relationship which
> describes relationships between several things or events. The equation
> describes the relationship mathematically.
> > It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
> Say what? Physics theories are created and used by physicists all the
> time! Part of the definition of physics are the definitions of theories,
> hypotheses, the scientific method and so forth.
>
> It is what YOU call a theory which is irrelevant. Nobody in science
> cares what some senile babbler in some old folks calls a theory. They
> care what scientists defined long ago as a part of a definition of
> science itself.

Moron, It is not irrelevant to find true cause of interactions. Current physics failed to find the true cause because they assumed wrongly that an equation without the cause is a complete theory. It is not.
Without the true cause math can lead you into a sea of abstractions. For example: the strong force is described by different abstract color forces which were never observed. Model Mechanics describes the cause of the strong force as the stacked interaction of the up quarks.
> >>
> >> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of gravity.no cause. Nobody
> >> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
> > e cause of interactions.
> > No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.
> Sorry, Stupid Ken. Newton's theory is a theory on how gravity acts and
> behaves, not its cause. A certain theory of optics describes how white
> light refracts in a glass prism. It doesn't care what the source of the
> light is.
> >> nteracti
> >> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
> >> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
> >
> > There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
> That is an assertion of no value. It is not science. For it to be
> science you'd need to provide clear and convincing evidence for the
> existence of the Ematrix, the particles and "absolute motion" as well as
> how they relate to produce anything described by the equation.
> >>
> >> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
> >> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
> >> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
>
> > ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.
> Stupid Ken, only gravity needs to be added. And it is not a failure for
> anything to take 110 years. Nobody set a timer.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>>>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>>>>>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>>>>>>>> the only force necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
>>>>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
>>>>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
>>>>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
>>>>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
>>>>> observed curve is a theory.
>>>> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
>>>> physicists call a physical theory.
>>>
>>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
>> LOL.
>>
>> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
>> physics theory is.
>
> Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.

But nobody cares what you think a theory should be. You’re not a scientist.
Your opinion of what a scientific theory should be is therefore worthless.
You adding something to what scientists deem a theory isn’t going to change
anyone’s mind, and whether you think it’s an improvement or not is
ignorable.

But it’s also recognized that you, living in an old-folk’s home, with no
skills in math or physics (or for that matter, no skills in chemistry
anymore), suffer from megalomania and delusions of grandeur, and that you
will die with the same syndromes. Your legacy will be as a deluded old man
who squandered his retirement money on a boondoggle, angry and bitter that
his “genius” was never acknowledged.

> That’s an improvement of the current theory. It turns out that the cause
> of the interaction
> is the most important, it leads to a valid theory
> of everything. Live with it.
>>
>> Got it.
> No you did’t get it.
>
>> er megalomaniacal delusions for the day?
>>>>
>>>> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of
>>>> gravity.no cause. Nobody
>>>> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
>>>
>>> No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.
>> According to YOU. Not according to physicists. You have very strange ideas.
>>>> nteracti
>>>> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
>>>> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
>>>
>>> There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is
>>> the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
>>>>
>>>> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
>>>> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
>>>> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
>>> ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.
>> More megalomania?
>>>
>>>>> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
>>>>> Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve
>>>>> effect of gravity.
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
>>>>> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
>>>>> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
>>>>> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
>>>>> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
>>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 8:57:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
> >>>>>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
> >>>>>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
> >>>>>>>> the only force necessary.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
> >>>>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
> >>>>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
> >>>>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
> >>>>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
> >>>>> observed curve is a theory.
> >>>> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
> >>>> physicists call a physical theory.
> >>>
> >>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
> >> physics theory is.
> >
> > Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.
> But nobody cares what you think a theory should be. You’re not a scientist.
> Your opinion of what a scientific theory should be is therefore worthless..
> You adding something to what scientists deem a theory isn’t going to change
> anyone’s mind, and whether you think it’s an improvement or not is
> ignorable.

Yeah, no SR cult member like you care. Cult beliefs will fail at the end.
>
> But it’s also recognized that you, living in an old-folk’s home, with no
> skills in math or physics (or for that matter, no skills in chemistry
> anymore), suffer from megalomania and delusions of grandeur, and that you
> will die with the same syndromes. Your legacy will be as a deluded old man
> who squandered his retirement money on a boondoggle, angry and bitter that
> his “genius” was never acknowledged.
> > That’s an improvement of the current theory. It turns out that the cause
> > of the interaction
> > is the most important, it leads to a valid theory
> > of everything. Live with it.
> >>
> >> Got it.
> > No you did’t get it.
> >
> >> er megalomaniacal delusions for the day?
> >>>>
> >>>> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of
> >>>> gravity.no cause. Nobody
> >>>> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
> >>>
> >>> No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.
> >> According to YOU. Not according to physicists. You have very strange ideas.
> >>>> nteracti
> >>>> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
> >>>> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
> >>>
> >>> There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is
> >>> the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
> >>>> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
> >>>> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
> >>> ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.
> >> More megalomania?
> >>>
> >>>>> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the corrected modified
> >>>>> Newtonian math and the corrected physical course of the observed curve
> >>>>> effect of gravity.
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> >>>>> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they failed to come up with
> >>>>> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
> >>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
> >>>>> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
> >>>>> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
> >>>>> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 8:57:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:21:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/3/2021 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 2:09:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2021 10:45 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2021 8:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:13:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t believe the basic physics that a single unbalanced force can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce a stable orbit, but even high school physics students know that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a lie.......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. Remember, Newton PROVED only one force was
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, and Newton’s proof is taught in high school physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Newton didn’t provide the cause of gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That wasn't his goal. His goal was to describe the actions of gravity
>>>>>>>>>> and prove it was the cause of orbital motion as well as proving it was
>>>>>>>>>> the only force necessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematic to describe the observed curve is not a theory.
>>>>>>>> But mathematics derived from observed curves and then used to predict
>>>>>>>> something new IS a theory. Consider how Newton's theory was used to
>>>>>>>> predict comets' orbits as well as Neptune from irregularities in Uranus'
>>>>>>>> orbit. THAT is what makes a theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No math alone is not a theory. Math in combination with the physical cause of the
>>>>>>> observed curve is a theory.
>>>>>> That may be what you WANT a theory to be, but that’s not really what
>>>>>> physicists call a physical theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>>> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
>>>> physics theory is.
>>>
>>> Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.
>> But nobody cares what you think a theory should be. You’re not a scientist.
>> Your opinion of what a scientific theory should be is therefore worthless.
>> You adding something to what scientists deem a theory isn’t going to change
>> anyone’s mind, and whether you think it’s an improvement or not is
>> ignorable.
>
> Yeah, no SR cult member like you care. Cult beliefs will fail at the end.

I guess I’ll be around longer than you to find out.
And you’ll go to your grave bitter and angry.

>>
>> But it’s also recognized that you, living in an old-folk’s home, with no
>> skills in math or physics (or for that matter, no skills in chemistry
>> anymore), suffer from megalomania and delusions of grandeur, and that you
>> will die with the same syndromes. Your legacy will be as a deluded old man
>> who squandered his retirement money on a boondoggle, angry and bitter that
>> his “genius” was never acknowledged.
>>> That’s an improvement of the current theory. It turns out that the cause
>>> of the interaction
>>> is the most important, it leads to a valid theory
>>> of everything. Live with it.
>>>>
>>>> Got it.
>>> No you did’t get it.
>>>
>>>> er megalomaniacal delusions for the day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton’s law of gravitation IS a theory of granting y. It has e cause of
>>>>>> gravity.no cause. Nobody
>>>>>> cares that you wouldn’t call it a theory because of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.
>>>> According to YOU. Not according to physicists. You have very strange ideas.
>>>>>> nteracti
>>>>>> Schrodinger’s equation for quantum mechanics IS a theory in physics. There
>>>>>> is no CAUSE explaining why that equation holds.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is physical cause why the equation holds......the physical cause is
>>>>> the absolute motions of the interacting particles in the E-Matrix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are countless examples of things that physicists call theories that
>>>>>> you don’t. But you’re not a physicist. You really don’t have any say in the
>>>>>> matter. Physics just isn’t what you thought it was.
>>>>> ROTFLOL.....that’s why physicists failed to find a valid TOE after
>>>>> 110 years of trying.
>>>> More megalomania?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s exactly why DTG is a complete theory of gravity. It has the
>>>>>>> corrected modified
>>>>>>> Newtonian math and the corrected
>>>>>>> physical course of the observed curve
>>>>>>> effect of gravity.
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
>>>>>>> Modern physicists just rely on math that’s the reason why they
>>>>>>> failed to come up with
>>>>>>> a valid TOE after 110 yeas of trying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To qualify are a theory, the cause of gravity must be included.
>>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. Scientists don't use that as a definition of a theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s because they are to lazy to search for the cause of gravity.....instead they
>>>>>>> just keep on coming up with more complicated equations. It urns out that math
>>>>>>> alone cannot come up with a valid theory of gravity because gravity is not a
>>>>>>> single attractive force. It is a composite force as described in DTG. Live with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 5/6/2021 8:41 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/5/2021 9:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.

>> Say what? Physics theories are created and used by physicists all the
>> time! Part of the definition of physics are the definitions of theories,
>> hypotheses, the scientific method and so forth.
>>
>> It is what YOU call a theory which is irrelevant. Nobody in science
>> cares what some senile babbler in some old folks calls a theory. They
>> care what scientists defined long ago as a part of a definition of
>> science itself.
>
> Moron, It is not irrelevant to find true cause of interactions.

It is irrelevant if the theory doesn't set out to do so.

Regardless, a nobody in an old folks' home has no say what actual
scientists consider relevant or irrelevant, because they consider YOU
irrelevant. Because you are.

> Current physics failed to find the true cause

Einstein found the cause of gravity. Warping of spacetime.

> because they assumed wrongly that an equation without the cause is a complete theory. It is not.

Stupid Ken, as I already showed you an equation by itself is never used.
If you have an equation as part of a theory, other parts explain the
theory, what all the variables and constants are, why the equation is
considered relevant and important, evidence that it is valid, etc. etc.
etc. Nowhere is the cause required.

> Without the true cause math can lead you into a sea of abstractions. For example: the strong force is described by different abstract color forces which were never observed. Model Mechanics describes the cause of the strong force as the stacked interaction of the up quarks.

"Stacked interaction of the up quarks"? What about the strong force
between down quarks?

And once again, you only made an assertion. Where is your evidence of
this "stacked interaction" babble? Where are your experiments which
show it? Where are your mathematical relationships? Or even WTF is a
"stacked interaction" in the first place?

>>> No Newton theory is incomplete. It lacks the cause of gravity.

Newton never tried to show the cause of gravity. Newton's theory is
complete for what it set out to do, show the gravitational interaction
of objects, regardless of cause.

On 5/6/2021 8:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.

>> LOL.
>>
>> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
>> physics theory is.
>
> Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.

You can't add anything to the current definition of a theory. That is
for scientists (collectively) to do, not some nobody wannabe scientist.

> That’s an improvement of the current theory.

Not according to scientists.

> It turns out that the cause of the interaction
> is the most important, it leads to a valid theory of everything. Live with it.

Scientists don't care what you think is "most important". Live with it.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/2021 8:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
>
>>> LOL.
>>>
>>> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
>>> physics theory is.
>>
>> Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.
>
> You can't add anything to the current definition of a theory. That is
> for scientists (collectively) to do, not some nobody wannabe scientist.
>
>> That’s an improvement of the current theory.
>
> Not according to scientists.
>
>> It turns out that the cause of the interaction
>> is the most important, it leads to a valid theory of everything. Live with it.
>
> Scientists don't care what you think is "most important". Live with it.
>

Ken’s whole bag is “I like science better if it does these things and
doesn’t do those other things. So I’ll just say that’s what ‘new science’
is and say it’s better because I like it better. And anybody who doesn’t
like it, including scientists, can go suck a rock.”

It’s a psychosis of a desperate and alienated old man.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, 6 May 2021 at 19:37:15 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 5/6/2021 8:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
> >
> >>> LOL.
> >>>
> >>> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
> >>> physics theory is.
> >>
> >> Idiot.....I added the cause of the interaction to the current definition for a theory.
> >
> > You can't add anything to the current definition of a theory. That is
> > for scientists (collectively) to do, not some nobody wannabe scientist.
> >
> >> That’s an improvement of the current theory.
> >
> > Not according to scientists.
> >
> >> It turns out that the cause of the interaction
> >> is the most important, it leads to a valid theory of everything. Live with it.
> >
> > Scientists don't care what you think is "most important". Live with it.
> >
> Ken’s whole bag is “I like science better if it does these things and
> doesn’t do those other things. So I’ll just say that’s what ‘new science’
> is and say it’s better because I like it better. And anybody who doesn’t
> like it, including scientists, can go suck a rock.”
>
> It’s a psychosis of a desperate and alienated old man.

While Bod's whole bag, on the other hand, is “I like science better if it
does these things and doesn’t do those other things. So I’ll just say
that’s what ‘science’ is and say it’s better because I like it better.
And anybody who doesn’t like it, including scientists, can go suck a
rock.”
It’s a psychosis of a poor fanatic idiot.

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:53:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/6/2021 8:15 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:26:43 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> An equation alone is not a theory. It is irrelevant what physicists call a theory.
> k so....> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> So what YOU say a theory is, is relevant. But not what a physicist says a
> >> physics theory is.
> >
> > Idiot.....I added the cause of the interact solve (-6)/ed canonic dauphin to the current definition for a theory.
> You can't add anything to the current definition of a theory. That is
> for scientists (collectively) to do, not some nobody wannabe scientist.

Idiot my way leads to a valid TOE. Current way failed to do so after 110 years of trying.

> > That’s an improvement of the current theory.
> Not according to scientists.

So you represent all the scientists? I don’t think so. You and your moronic daughter can’t even solve (-6/-2).

> > It turns out that the cause of the interaction
> > is the most important, it leads to a valid theory of everything. Live with it.
> Scientists don't care what you think is "most important". Live with it.